Get it out of some of the journals into vast online. The myth of shareholder value being the sole determ nantfor performance. Theres frankly no law that requires to strictly maximize shareholder value as Supreme Court recently stated in an opinion. Focus on outcome because it helps people and what do you replace it with . You have to go with your opinion or friend or political cohort. Faith leaders. When i talk to faith leaders that they join the aaaf. We have all the immense complex science and engineering issues that are facing usment us. They all have moral and ethical components that recent pastors could have fascinating discussions pending and science really does equate to civil rights. Its the foundation of the idea of civil rights and not enough of an emotional and political connection there and refuting the myth of nonintertentent self. My own actions are the only ones that i need to take into account. One last step you could do, again, as i said, sign on, support sciencedebyte. Org. This was a project created by six people that went viral, within weeks had 40 some thousand engineers sign on. A couple hundred universities, joining them would be in good company. Calling for candidates to talk about these things. Because if we get them in the public discussion, then we can trust in this beautiful process of democracy that we have developed to vet the ideas and thinking and move them forward. Science debate. Org, held online exchanges between president obama and opponents mitt romney and we have made Online Publications and news reports around the world mostly in the United States creating coverage of these issues that hadnt and probably wouldnt have been discussed if it were not for this issue. So it really is true that that a small group of determined individuals can change the world. In fact, president obama quoted our Mission Statement in his inauguration and appointed several earliest and supporters to his cabinet. Again, sciencedebate. Org. Im paraphrasing here. Everybody has changed. Our ways of thinking and suggest that we are still dealing with that same question. So thank you for listening and we will have a discussion now. [applause] i should also say that the tv crew, when it comes to q a thatly bring microphone thats not tied into the audio and the pa system in the room, so they can pick up your question. So please work with them on that and speak loudly. We should exchain the presence of tv cameras and all that as well, this is being video taped for book tv which is cspan production. Microphones are going to feed for the program. Youve raised a lot of questions. Ive been doing science policy for my whole career. I was head before coming that are familiar. Youre not a scientist. How did you get into this business . I started out as a scientist and i got interested in policy and pursued that, but i look at your resume, where is his interest in science. Yeah, im a bit of an odd duck that way. I actually studied a combination of things, physics, neuroscience and maintained an interest in it. Although, a lot of my heros were writers and i just wanted to be a writer. It happened to be Charles Darwins greatgreat grandson. Hes also director of a movie and he and i were for adapting biography of Albert Einstein and we were all without work, we had a little bit of time on our hands and frustrated by the low quality of political discussion at that point in time and how the candidates werent really talking about any the science, tech, health or environmental challenge that is we were facing and from our point of view, those have as large an impact as economic challenges or Foreign Policy challenges on everyones daily lives, so we decided to do something about it which led us down a very twisted rabbit hole. Okay. So youve written this book which you have titled the war on science and youve described it a bit but it sounds to me like there is i mean, the term war on science suggests an organized opposition. Is this are we science advocates facing an organized opposition to science or is this just coming from different quarters as you described and industry and rightwing politics . Its both. It is organized particularlily the industrial war on science. There is a Large Network of gross roots groups that are being funded by the energy industry. Americans for prosperity funded by the Koch Brothers and carry enormous weight and have a specific objective that theyre pushing. And what do you suppose theyre doing this . What is their stake in this business . How do you well, if youre in an oil Company Climate change is an existencial issue. And set about disinformation campaigns. Its very much an existential issue. I was intrigued by you raising the issue of false balance. You know, i see this myself. How do you get around this how do you teach journalists that this is not i mean, this is not the way to serve the Public Interest . Yeah, its a big problem because a journalist is really a generalist and not an expert and in some ways responsible by portraying their reportage as objective when its not. They have to acknowledge their bioses. As i point out whenever i have the opportunity, fail to go consider the weight of the work of evidence and they need to balance the story and people that i point that do this very well in the book. I talk to stephanie curtis, its the only weekly radio show that actually gets goes in depth of Climate Change. And it turns out that once you get bas that base level political question, the whole world opens up as far as the fascinating questions that you can get into about how el nino affects lakes in the midwest or weather patterns and things like that and how we should be prepared for coming changes. So its actually an approach that could make meteorologists to viewership because they are providing solid information that people need to know. How do you think future developments affect opposition to the war on science and to expand on that, is there a way to promote science in a direction that will help in fighting this war on science . Yeah, well, one thing occurs along two lines. One has to do with shortcircuiting democracy in order to forestall or affect the business bottom line. So it usually involves Public Relations campaigns in order to pra liez the process or to get people to vote one way or another and provide them with quote, unquote science to challenge the traditional mainstream science. The other is the issue when science presents us with moral quandary or area that we need to refine our moral and ethical understanding that always carries a debate and dont like the idea of science telling us what to do. Thats areas where its going to continue to happen. The most fascinating area is the emergents of knowledge in neuroscience and what that says about free will. Because if people have only limited agency and we can define when they do and when they have agency and what the limits of that are, what does that say about our legal system and Holding People accountable for their actions . I think there are moral and ethical and legal questions that we are going to get into in the next few years. I think thats a good point which to open this up to questions from the audience and i see one immediately and i see a gentleman with a microphone here on a wand. Thank you for your presentation. This is a very good lecture but i think basically we change the war on science to justice [inaudible] we tend to participate whether youre a republican or democrat. The problem is profit corporation, whether that individual or the Koch Brothers, the important thing they use profit, they hide the profit in their debate, so everything is really in terms of who gets the most money from consumer or the government. If if we can substitute or if you see they want to label him mental ill instead of saying hes a great scientist. So if we change the wording about justice and the whole thing, we want to debate [inaudible] so important is our people a really good operation. Dont allow them to control the microphone, allow people to speak. Thanks for this. Thank you, it is about justice. And science is by creating evidence thats impartial, of course, the foundation of not only our Justice System but our political system as well. And so i think that the emphasis on justice is actually a very good suggestion. Thank you. We are here. Let me remind you that these are questions and in a question your voice rises at the end and ends with a question mark and so it should no more than a short paragraph. Okay. Im really sorry. Okay. The microphone im just sorry that holistic medicine and genetically modified organisms were swept into some of what i would agree is really antiscience where evidence is denied but i would like to know what youre basing that on because as a medical researcher and social scientist i found that medical research did not meet social science standard, often apples and oranges were mixed together and yet the authors claim to have a definitive finding say about sche sclorosis when they looked at very sick patients and one last example is the nhss examination of vitamin c under pressure and then they said we are not going to look further back than 1982. Social science tries to be exhaustive as possible so that you dont miss anything. So what research did you do to lump holistic medicine as antiscience . So i think if i understand it right, the question is what research did i use to lump holistic medicine to antiscience . I dont think i said holistic, i think i said alternative. By holistic youre meaning by homeopathy, genetically modified people, a lot of people are thinking that genetically modified means some additional ingredient that we are add to go it and all it is a more precise form of plant breeding and in some ways it is safer than prior breeding methods but where it gets into trouble and important issue is how its genetically modified and for what purposes. If its genetically modify today stave papaya or prevent blindness, then those are good purposes that like any tool, science is a tool, remember, that serve humanity. If thats genetically modified to make plants withstand herbicides, some herbicides and insecticides that are borrowing from the environment by creating other problems, then generally theres probable going to be some consequences from that and we are seeing that and i talk about that in book with the emergence of super weeds. Its a danger to broad i will say that all gmo is bad to eat which is often argued by those in the organic food movement. Thats not true. There is a political legitimate controversy about how its applied. Over here. And then the gentleman next to you. My question has to do with education. Where do we start, how do we start. Im concerned not about College Campuses about trigger warnings and things that student get, they dont want to be upset, yet if youre going to truly learn, i think learning is fundamentally dangerous in my opinion, where do we start so that children in young peoples minds are opened to receive information that might be controversial because i think thats the key to ending the war on science. Great. Good question. One of the things that when i talked to teachers, i talk about process a lot and about different techniques that you can use, when youre teaching Young Students you want to create cognitive dissonance and then science shows theyre actually receptive to new information because the solution to a problem or the answer to a question that theyve raised themselves in their own mind, well, what better way to raise concern than to talk about political issues. Student science debates are fantastic tool, one that often talk about, taking politically contentious topics surrounding science, for instance, making assertion vaccines do cause autism or Climate Change is human caused or not human caused. Something like that. And then sending students to research both sides of the question but not telling them which side theyre going to debate until the day of in which case you flip a coin. The students actually learn for themselves some of the more interesting differences between rhetorical arguments or Public Relations arguments and actual science and theyre equipped on both sides, so they kind of learn the difference. So thats one interesting tool thats actually a lot of fun that doesnt have the teacher responsible for taking in position if the administration is uncomfortable about it. Another one that i like to do is working with students on the fundamental questions like its something alive or not alive. My wife used to be a Science Teacher and she would use a unit to explore this with air ferns, which if you know, im not going to tell you if theyre alive or not, you can research yourself. But theyre sort of like viruses, its a fascinating area to begin to explore some of the fundamental questions about life and the universe and if you can engage students in that and where the answer is not readily apparent and there are some twists and turns, you can capture their imagination in a way that i think is very important because its not about regurgitating the right answer, which is not what science is, its an exploration of the big ideas that we are still grappling with. So those are two examples, anyway. Hi, my name is roger oliva, im an engineer so my background is science and physics, mostly. Can you speak a little louder, please . Okay. The comment was the people that need to read your book arent going to read your book so that leads me to my first question which is what can we do about it and i think you answered the education piece perfectly. I mean, if you get students ingauged and thats a great way forward but beyond student engagement, what does your book recommend that we do about it . And the second question is just i will ask the second question in a minute but okay, well, first let me apologize for the wise crack about engineers. [laughter] i was just having fun. But, yes, those who are author authorritarian by nature and theyre going to assume this is a book about Climate Change which is not although theres a chapter that deals with industrial science. Those people arent going to probably pick it up. But their family members might, friends might, members of the media i certainly hope will and by equipping people with some tools to think about this and to think about to be reminded of what they may have known and forgotten about the fundamental role of evidence and science and democracy i think will give those people tool to begin to change the conversation to at least feel equipped to provide to the other side. [laughter] my next question is what is the next book going to be . Im curious. Im exploring a topic and about acid which was discovered by a guy name cliff steer at the university of minnesota and it slows, chemical compound thats in our gut and appears in very, very high levels in bear bile. [laughter] no, bear bile. For a variety of reasons, its kind of a wonder drug that can treat parkinsons and als and all kind of health issues. Its not being produced because of the structure because out of our pharmaceutical system. Sounds like alternative medicine. Well, yeah, it involve it is chinese mafia, their byo bile has been eaten in china. Yes, over here and then in the back. How would you evaluate the work of journalists in places like the science section of the New York Times and if i have found my name is stephanie and i have found many articles to be informative but what would well they interact with other journalists who are so addicted to balance that they avoid evidence . I think the New York Times generally does a good job. There are few science sections left. Only 7 or less than 7 actually positions in their field. Many of them have to work in other fields or work assigns bloggers because newspaper have cut those sections by in large because theyre more expensive. Same with Investigative Journalism sections. Those are the two sections that have been as the model of internet and so its a big problem because here we are ironically living in an age when science impacts almost every policy issue and science, first of all, it never appears in the Political Pages because editors dont put it there and second of all, most newspapers dont have science sections anymore so people are not even been given the information they need to equip themselves. My question is really simple, what is the role of scientists in this war on science . Yes, its a really great question. Its simple and deceptively simple. Because its very important, but, you know, the most important thing, i think, is get out and be involved in the community and be out as a scientist because we need to reconnect that severed link between science and society and the best way to do that is by personal, emotional relationships. That is how people make many of their decisions and thats what influences many people in their thinking and right now polls show that the majority of americans cant name a single living scientist even though there are about 2 million working among us like zombies. The woman in the back. You touched on what i was going to ask, now, why not have sexy tv shows that are all connecting the dots science ificically and getting the people to be associated with it, connect them in their homes, do it emotionally because look at what has been happening politically recently . No, thats a great idea. The National Academy, the National Academy of engineering have a program called the science and entertainment exchanging where they work to do just that. They provide scientists, science advisers to film tv shows so they get the science right and they also have motive by informing those kinds of relationships between producers, writers and scientists so that they see that scientists are actually generally pretty cool people that are interested in a lot of things and not the dry boring people with white lab coats. Hollywood has a hard time with science, we have to face it. Its hard for them to do comedies without making fun of scientists, you know, making them into either idiotic nerds or evil machinators. We are still struggling with right now. It certainly is something that i would like to find a way to continue to make progress on. One here and one back there. Im studying engineering but i have a strong interest in future career in science policy and as i began to interact with people that advise congressmen on science issues typically with Public Policy or a Political Science background as well, so im wondering if you have a perspective if that should change or more largely what the impediments is internal to the process, internally how can we amend the relationship and whats standing in the way . Absolutely. One thing that i tell scientists is call your member of congress and ask if they have a science adviser, a lot of times they will say no. In which case, volunteer and help them and say i will put together a team, even, and the thing about it is that it doesnt matter what the Political Party is, if youre providing them with the latest objective knowledge impartially, youre going a Great Service and thats good no matter who the member is. The other thing that i try to encourage is taking a nonpartisan approach and i talk in the book about kind of a structural issue right now, the problem with the way we do science advise in the United States, particularly the president ial science adviser which is appointed by the president and looked upon biased by the opposing Political Party. Peter provides a good example of how to do differently. I have an interview and profile in the book, science adviser for new zealand and he made a great decision early on, i will only do it if we, if i can equally advise the other side. Because im there for the government and im speaking objectively and the Prime Minister agreed and they had a lot of problems with teen population, drug abuse, high suicide rates and they commission to form a team and get to the bottom of it and instead of putting together a team of stakeholders which would be basically a team best interest each with their own bias coming together to see what the best bias compromise they can make as, they went to academics and scientists that researched the question impartially. It was peerreviewed nationally and internationally and they came up with a number of recommendations. The fascinating thing was that through that process which is very transparent, at the end the Prime Minister stood up and said, we dont know which of these recommendations are going to work because, you know, this is a new problem. So theres not a lot of history on it, but based on what we do know, these are the best recommend axes recommendations and we are going to go forward with them. As far as conceptual approach to science advise, thats what i would encourage but in the u. S. System as it is now, reach out no matter the Political Party and person and offer to serve. Actually i know a republican congressman from michigan who tells that pretty much that story as a personal story. He volunteered as a science adviser, ended up as a member of congress. One of supporters of science debate. In the back. All the way in the back. Sir, i just wanted to know if you felt it was inevitable that science would actually win this war in the long run concerning that considering that earth is finite and population is exploding and the needs of population are going to become thorny and demand scientific answers. Yeah, okay. I will repeat it more broadly. Because of the finite limit of the planet is science going to win the war because we are bumping against the limits, with our increasing population and the limited pastor or limited field. And i think to a certain extent thats true. Although there are a lot of people who question that. A couple of people that i talk to in the book question that, pointing to how science has repeatedly kind of broken that zero sum game thinking by innovating ways to increase the productivity of the pastor of the bounded field. I think theres strong argument to be made that we are facing a limiting factor. Whether science gets us to a sustainable solution ahead of nature is the open question, i think, and i think wed all like to manage our own sustainability instead of nature managing it for us because i dont think that outcome is going to be a very pretty one. The lady here with her hand up. As a layperson, i guess my question is, i think its hard there are things that we make scientists make mistakes or they learn Different Things and i think and maybe this has to do with reporting but specially in the area of health or nutrition, there are claims that people make rather arrog antly, i dont know if its based on science or other factors but then people buy into that and becomes kind of a fad and then pretty soon youre off to another thing and what it does it undermines peoples confidence in what they read about science and maybe that just get ts gets back to how science is reported. I think youre right. Particularly in health and nutrition area, a lot of that about 95 of the science that you hear is absolute crap. A lot of it is industryfunded phoney science that take advantage of journalism and journalists like to get sexy nut graph and nice lead and a great headline. I outline a couple of cases where scientists have worked to expose this by, for instance, doing a phoney study about whether or not chocolate would help you lose weight. And using a technique called peahacking, you sample for all kinds of different variables and with the advantage of complete hindsight you look through all the variables and you pick the one blip thats statistically significant that gives you a funny argument. So you have not actually done a double blind study at all, youre statistically manipulating it and then you can say, oh, well, people who ate chocolate lost weight 10 faster. Of course, youre going sell a lot of chocolate bars and thats going to be on the cover of People Magazine or whatever within a week. It is a big problem, particularly in the health and nutrition fields and popular press. The woman in the purple. Okay. Her question addresses what i was leading up to here. Who gets to decide what is the final word on what is scientifically established on the cutting edge of things, things that fuzzy, things go back and forth. I spent a career working in regulation of toxic substances and you have, as you say, things that are bogus or you might suspect are bogus and things that arent, but in dealing studies they are uncontrolled. They go up and they go down. Its a mess and going going to the National Academies of science, engineering and medicine, they can do a damn good job in joining to experts and gets biases and all the rest, but at the same time science has gotten so complicated and so specialized that for a scientist in one area to make judgments about results in another is not easy. And i think business about the gmo crops and the feelings about that within it is, it is really hard to explain to an educated layperson who is convinced what you were saying about fears hidden dangerous. I have to say i have not yet been successful in doing so. Your comment and question touched on a lot of important things, one is that in the absence of knowledge we often default to fear. That, for instance, happens, speaking, i guess our engineer on the left, arrested by the fbi last year for giving pocket header designed to the chinese which was classified except that it turns out that it wasnt a pocket heater design at all. And the fbi failed to do the science necessary, educate themselves necessary to determine that and instead fell back on essentially what is kind of a racist bias. Would the same thing happen in mohamed outside in irving texas, the kid who brought a clock he designed to school and the police thought it was a movie bomb. They arrested him largely because he was a muslim kid with electronics. So when we dont understand, thats when fear and bias and the racism often take over our thinking. And then the other point that you made is that science is often, you know, when youre on the frontier things are not well defined. Its not clear, obvious. This is hard. A lot of times it is fuzzy or things that may seem certain or well established now are shown that they are not so certain down the road. This highlights actually a very important problem in my mind which is our reward structure in publishing and the answer is getting a variety of points of view and having a variety of people confirm current knowledge and particularly highlighted in the social sciences but i think its a problem in the physical sciences as well that theres not a lot of incentive for me if im running a lab and to go out and do an experiment that reconfirms something that betsy published three years ago. Im not going to get any citations from that, no new funding from that and we have a problem because a lot of times studies are out there that are only based published only based on one study or one set of experiments and we dont know as solidly as we should. Science is an imperfect mechanism but still the best one weve got and the fact that is we can have conversations about it is imperfections and its part of what makes it so robust. I was going to say one last question but i see two hands so if theyre short, each of you can ask a question and then we are adjourned after that. Okay. So i was intrigued what you said about the humanities and being underfunded. And those, folks are perfect for showing the wonder and beauty of science and getting to the gut response of people, so what do you say to the humanity folks to bring them in on the fight to our side. Thank you for that. When taken to an extreme, the ideas of post modernism are wrong and are actually work to favor authoritarian and they wind up with the opposite effect. The other thing that i try to do is, for instance, the great opportunity for teaching science civics and talking about the way that we evolve knowledge and going back through some of the history that i talked about today, thats just fascinating stuff that touches on so many Big Questions about what is the basis of law, you know, how do we arrive at common law and how does that relate to religion and how did the word scientist come out by comparison with artist and why did that discussion happen. It was suggested by a poet, actually. So there are all the fascinating interrelationships between science and the humanities and the arts in a way science is an art. In fact, it was considered an art until it was defined as art in the meeting of the London Academy of sciences. So i think that by going back asking those Big Questions and encouraging people to reach out and bridge that divide, two cultures divide and team teach and explore together, we can do a lot. There was a tremendous professor that i had in college that professor kim, that ran he ran a thing called physics for poets or maybe it was called cosmos back then. I went back to teach and the first time i got to go to the airport to pick up john wheeler, all these amazing people and it was the most inspirational things because he was getting at those core questions of what is life and what is it all about and thats how to capture people go for the imagination, so thank you for that. Last question over here. Im a science communicator and i see some reason for optimism in some of the rises of blogs and i think the genuine sense and are there changes that you see happening that we can look to for a source of happiness and joy for the future. Thank you for that. Were you plant [laughter] theres absolutely reason for optimism. The human spirit is end leslie resilient and endlessly and in certain ways it applies to anything that we have to make aware of before solving solutions. Thats what im attempting to do here with a striking title and i do get into Many Solutions at the end of the book and i think the generation that the millennials have a fundamentally view of many of these topics, much of this is driven by a certain focus on self they dont have, partly because they have grown up in social media so they do have a experience of reality thats in part much more communityoriented than some of us in the older generation and i think they are more focused on issues of justice, frankly than they are on issues of selfopportunity and that gives me a reason for hope. I think to the extent that science is a force for justice and to the extent that being proscience and being a nerd is cool, specially in that young generation, i think that we have a lot to look forward to. Okay. Join me in giving a warm thank you. [applause] thank you, thank you. And please thank my coconspirator al teich. [inaudible conversations] buy this, five of them. He was asking if i would sign, i will. They have some for sale outside and hopefully they will have enough, if not, preorder. But i will sit here and sign any copies that you guys may have. Thank you for coming. I hope you enjoy it. [inaudible conversations] book tv recently visited capitol hill to ask members of congress what theyre reading this summer. Reading is such an exciting thing. I read about a hundred books a year and done a book report on every one of them since i got out of graduate school. One of the things im doing now is reading some of the mystery books that i have read before. Theres author named cj box who writes about joe picket. Some special things there. I get advance copies of his book, usually. This one is about Yellow Stone Park and on that one i actually got to be involved before he wrote the book because there was a zone in wyoming, in Yellowstone Park that was considered to be idaho and there was no jury of peers and consequently you can commit murder there and he asked me to make sure that that wouldnt be a possibility before the book came out and encouraged people to kill people in the part of idaho thats Yellowstone Park. Fascinating person. Another wyoming author that im read asking Craig Johnson who does the long myer sheriff series which is on television too, but the television ones are not the same of the books to i encourage people to read the books, another phenomenal character study writer. Do a Little International reading. I have been to boswana to work on the aids problem. 15million to solving the aids problem. That got our attention and i got to write the bill, after i wrote the bill i got to see where the problem was. Its great of bringing about the culture of a lot of africa. I carry books with me all of the time, thats why i have these. Everybody has to have a cell phone. Its really easy to have apps on them. Theres a kindle app, on that one im reading 60 years on the planes and thats about a guy that was a trader, trapper and indian fighter and his dairy has been written into a book which didnt come out very long ago and fascinating stuff about the west. And i carried kindle with me and fits in my pocket easy and easy to read outdoors because it doesnt have the color depth that toar does and on this one im reading grill on girl on the train. Totally different style of writing and some people would consider a chick novel. I also read technical books that have to do with my job. I read several books at a time, you can get tired one book one style so you switch around and keeps the interest going particularly if they are textbook types and one of them that i have been working is deadman ruling which fits in my budget book because thats about people who wrote the budget act who are all either dead or former senators and theres some problems. Im trying to redo the budget act right now and theres a lot of help in that. Theres another excellent book that i am going through when i read a technical i try to get the jest from the introduction and if they do, i read the part in between to see how they got to that point. I highly suggest that for any of the technical reading, you can tell between the first chapter and the last chapter whether the middle part of the book is going to be worth reading. I also dogear books. I where in the margins as i come up with the ideas, something i learned from graduate school from a guy which really shouldnt have a lot of reading but gave us a reading list of books that didnt have anything to do with business and had us write down the ideas that we got as we did that. The lost science of money is another one that im reading right now. Its a very thick book that takes a little different approach to the Federal Reserve and some of the ones that are antiFederal Reserve and some that are proFederal Reserve. This one goes more into the history of money and actually had some good suggestions in the last chapter. Im trying to fill in the piece right now. So another part of my reading, every night when i finish up ive got to met my mind off of what ive been doing, if i keep talking budget or working education or working pensions or Small Business or whatever committee im really focused on that evening fi go to sleep i keep working on it unless i read Something Different and thats when i read some of the novels by i always finish up by reading some of the books that are religious background. Right after 9 11i got a copy of the quran, a translation of the quran, i cant read arabic. I had to go see the chaplain because its really a bloody book and really concerned. Well, you need to go back and read the old testament. The difference between the quran and the bible is the new testament is teachings of jesus which is recognized by the other religions and its more peaceful. So im reading another translation of the quran that was given to me by a muslim who said that youll find this to be a less violent version. It might be but theres still a lot of violence whether you believe or you dont, reading a biography of billy graham also and i like the chronological bible. The different books of the bible were written at different times and even some pieces of them were written at different times and somebody took and compiled it so that it flows straight through and you find out they werent sent to babalon six different times and its probably a little bit charter than the gospel because theres repetition in there and they dont repeat the same verse four times because it was in the gospel. Thats a pretty good way to read the bible and also challenged to read the bible over a short period of time, i was suggested to read it over three months and my son and i both took the challenge and did it and you can do it with any bible, you just look at the number of pages it has and divide it by the number of days and those three months and you read that many pages each day and the advantage of doing that is, youre looking at the big picture then instead of the individual verses which we sometimes get hung up on. So that was a little bit of what im reading and what im doing with my summer. I have a plane trip to wyoming pretty much every weekend and, of course, you have to come back to vote, thats a threebook trip. So i get quite a bit done besides the studying that i have to do on the plane. Here are some conversations with people at the show. Host kanojia, what are you showing the members of congress down here . Guest the new company we started which is a competitive